Re: Sybase vs Oracle - which is better?

On 19 Nov 1998 05:21:47 GMT, Joe & Anne Buhl <jabuhl_at_worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Sybase comes with a nice set of stored procedures for checking system
>tables and monitoring....Oracle has none.

Crap. Never heard of the DBMS packages?

>Sybase has the capability to do temp tables owned by a session. I think
>there a bit of a bitch to manage in Oracle.

True, though it can be done

>Sybase, generally speaking, is easier to administer.

Bzzzz. One of the WORST features of Sybase is linear logging - which needs GUESS-WORK to administer!

>As for row level locking... I have never worked on a system in 10 years
>where that was necessary.

I can think of extreme situations, but I think your right that generally it shouldn't be an issue.

>The whole Oracle architecture seems a tad primitive.

Mmm, I'd prefer to think of it as different.

Ciao
Fuzzy
:-) Received on Thu Nov 19 1998 - 00:00:00 CST